Brilliant piece! The appeal of “nature” and “natural remedies” or “solutions” is that one doesn’t have to think. It’s the same with religion. The answer is just there so thinking isn’t required - in fact it is actively discouraged.
Thank you for your work, and for thinking critically and sceptically.
"Nature fallacy is a sick delusion that is holding us back as a species. We need to put it to bed. "
Amen to that. If not checked by human skill and technology, natural forces will kill us all too quickly. Natural forces which we resist include disease, starvation, thirst, hunger, freezing in cold weather, dying of heat prostration when it's too hot. We resist all these things strenuously by using human technology, and we have been doing so for millions of years. We resist the worst of environmental damage by inventing at least a million years ago the concepts of clothing and shelter. Without those two things, most of the Earth would be uninhabitable for the Naked Ape.
We resist food poisoning by primitive methods like cooking and washing. We resist disease by medicine, both ancient and modern methods, based on what has been shown empirically to work. We resist starvation by producing food which can be stored against times of shortage. We increase food supply by things like fertilization. Medical technology is why women don't die at the average age of 30 from childbirth. Fossil fuels and tractors are why most men do not die from accidents with farm animals stepping on them and killing them.
We cross deep water by boats and rafts.
Technology is the only method by which we prevent life, as Thomas Hobbes wrote in 'Leviathan' from being "nasty, brutish and short."
The overall point of this article is well taken. But the opening example is unfortunate. All fire is interesting to humans - especially when its origin and source of fuel is not obvious to us, and many of us also enjoy the view of a human-made campfire or fireplace - or even that of a steel smelter or oil-well fire. The problem with human-caused fires is not that we find them less beautiful due to their being unnatural, but that their abundance is now a threat to the environment.
Fire is a necessary component of all human technology since the Paleolithic. The abundance of human caused wildfires is no more common now than it was 5,000 years ago. When implemented, effective forest management greatly mitigates wildfire severity. The destruction of Jasper by forest fire this year shows the consequences of NOT doing proper forest management.
And since the rate of wildfires has not substantially changed over the past five millennia, please explain why you believe that this constitutes a threat.
Really excellent article. This fallacy is everywhere. You go through it’s many permutations and effects. It used to upset me when people talked nonsense about things like living chemically free. Now I just laugh inwardly . Going to link to it in my next newsletter on Monday
There is pervasive ‘common sense’ that natural is better or safer. This paradigm does need to be countered as it causes many distractions and harm. Part of the impetus is fear of hazard of new things and it is true that new and unknown things even when overall more safe introduce a lesser number of hazards that need to be learned and prevented, hence safety engineering. The positive side is more complex and useful, what can we, should we explore and create. While exploration and creation is inherent to the biology of sentient beings, with humans it occurs through effort (mediated by psychology and paradigm) and is multiplied by institutions, networks and paradigms. Thanks to private and state capital we invent at a pretty good clip which in turn seems to pose a lot of questions about judging this creation and change. That includes another level of the nature fallacy, nature worship that mostly seems part of a broader victim worship (Mother Nature being one of several victims). There is an impetus in the biology of sensing to be awed by beauty and fascinated by complexity. As well as awareness that survival depends on interaction within sensed environment which can be degraded through harmful action, and in turn feeling of debt owed to the environment we are dependent on. Positive philosophies, materialism and religions, need to evolve to tackle judgment of discovery and modernizing if we are to better contest victim worship and malthusianism. This seems very primitive so far, hardly touched beyond superficial, simple and hazy flags. The good news is technology is giving us tools like intelligent software and social media that enable us to discover more and discuss it more broadly and we will push forward as we always have.
In large part it was. The program was so successful that Yuri Andropov was selected to be Leonid Brezhnev's successor despite reservations about his KGB background. In turn, Gorbachev was to be the successor after him.
At least one German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was indeed a Soviet proxy. That's why after his political career he was appointed to the board of Gazprom.
Whoa! You've cut an awful big swath with this one. I might agree with about half of what you've written here. The problem is, when you say "there is ample research proving all of these claims to be false", most of us have lost trust in said 'research', since so much of it is bought and paid for by special interests. like Big Pharma. So we're left to think for ourselves.
One very difficult statement to buy is when you said "organic farming is not better for the environment or human health". Really? Who says?
I signed up for your substack because of your brilliant writing on nuclear radiation not being nearly as harmful as we've always been taught. Based on that, I've recommended you. But now? I think you've gone off the deep end. What hace you been smoking?
Mostly wrong. Big pharma? Try surviving a major infection without antibiotics. Try surviving a medical surgical procedure without modern antiseptics and anisthetics.
As for organic farming, how many people in the world do you think would start starving to death if the Green Revolution had never occurred and modern fertilizers and protections against noxious weeds and pests did not exit? The destruction to humanity's food supply would be enormous.
So, who says? Everyone who knows anything about how food is produced. "Organic" is nothing more than an advertising label of zero nutritional value.
Well, like I said, I only question about half of what Zion Lights said; not all. That means I agree with the other half. She sure covered a lot.
Yes, of course we’ve benefited tremendously from advances in pharmaceuticals. What I was reacting to is recent revelations about the harm that the Cov-19 vaccines did, and how the Big Pharma pushed them before sufficient trials and how the truth was censored.
As for organic farming, all I was questioning is the statement that it’s not better for your health. As a retired person, I have time to ‘tend my own garden’, and don’t use pesticides or herbicides. I suspect the fresh organic produce is good for my health. Surely you’re not going to argue that I’d be better off and healthier by using the chemicals?
I realize organic isn’t not practical on large scale farms, and I also realize that food production in 3rd world countries is very important no matter how it’s done.
Yes, and I probably get as much out of the fresh air, sunshine, and exercise as from the food itself.
But you have responded to my main question - don’t you think you used too broad a brush on some those topics about what is ‘natural’? It was just too much for me to take in. Perhaps you could give some evidence…but one or two at a time, not the whole shebang at once.
I see value in organic farming as a way of maintaining agricultural techniques that may be needed in case manufactured pesticides do turn out to be harmful and/or there is a collapse of the industrial system that produces them. But I am not aware of any strong evidence that organic foods really are generally better for our health. And I would like to check the source of your claim about "recent revelations about the harm that the Cov-19 vaccines did, and how the Big Pharma pushed them before sufficient trials and how the truth was censored".
I don’t know of any proof organic is food is better either, but I think there is some proof that pesticides and herbicides can be harmful, so I prefer organic home-grown food as much as possible.
My daughter teaches microbiology to college students and she keeps me up to date on vaccine info. Here’s one source, but there are many more -
The vaccines were pushed through on a '“fast track” for approval by the FDA. The producers had a profit motive to ignore best practices as since they were allowed to.
Brilliant piece! The appeal of “nature” and “natural remedies” or “solutions” is that one doesn’t have to think. It’s the same with religion. The answer is just there so thinking isn’t required - in fact it is actively discouraged.
Thank you for your work, and for thinking critically and sceptically.
Oh, I agree! Worship of "natural" should be put in its place with fear Excitement and bravery, too! All to be used judiciously and sparingly!
Remember "Mr. Natural", the underground comic character from the 1960s?
I once asked a grocery clerk if they had any INorganic bananas. ;-)
"Nature fallacy is a sick delusion that is holding us back as a species. We need to put it to bed. "
Amen to that. If not checked by human skill and technology, natural forces will kill us all too quickly. Natural forces which we resist include disease, starvation, thirst, hunger, freezing in cold weather, dying of heat prostration when it's too hot. We resist all these things strenuously by using human technology, and we have been doing so for millions of years. We resist the worst of environmental damage by inventing at least a million years ago the concepts of clothing and shelter. Without those two things, most of the Earth would be uninhabitable for the Naked Ape.
We resist food poisoning by primitive methods like cooking and washing. We resist disease by medicine, both ancient and modern methods, based on what has been shown empirically to work. We resist starvation by producing food which can be stored against times of shortage. We increase food supply by things like fertilization. Medical technology is why women don't die at the average age of 30 from childbirth. Fossil fuels and tractors are why most men do not die from accidents with farm animals stepping on them and killing them.
We cross deep water by boats and rafts.
Technology is the only method by which we prevent life, as Thomas Hobbes wrote in 'Leviathan' from being "nasty, brutish and short."
The overall point of this article is well taken. But the opening example is unfortunate. All fire is interesting to humans - especially when its origin and source of fuel is not obvious to us, and many of us also enjoy the view of a human-made campfire or fireplace - or even that of a steel smelter or oil-well fire. The problem with human-caused fires is not that we find them less beautiful due to their being unnatural, but that their abundance is now a threat to the environment.
Fire is a necessary component of all human technology since the Paleolithic. The abundance of human caused wildfires is no more common now than it was 5,000 years ago. When implemented, effective forest management greatly mitigates wildfire severity. The destruction of Jasper by forest fire this year shows the consequences of NOT doing proper forest management.
And since the rate of wildfires has not substantially changed over the past five millennia, please explain why you believe that this constitutes a threat.
Really excellent article. This fallacy is everywhere. You go through it’s many permutations and effects. It used to upset me when people talked nonsense about things like living chemically free. Now I just laugh inwardly . Going to link to it in my next newsletter on Monday
There is pervasive ‘common sense’ that natural is better or safer. This paradigm does need to be countered as it causes many distractions and harm. Part of the impetus is fear of hazard of new things and it is true that new and unknown things even when overall more safe introduce a lesser number of hazards that need to be learned and prevented, hence safety engineering. The positive side is more complex and useful, what can we, should we explore and create. While exploration and creation is inherent to the biology of sentient beings, with humans it occurs through effort (mediated by psychology and paradigm) and is multiplied by institutions, networks and paradigms. Thanks to private and state capital we invent at a pretty good clip which in turn seems to pose a lot of questions about judging this creation and change. That includes another level of the nature fallacy, nature worship that mostly seems part of a broader victim worship (Mother Nature being one of several victims). There is an impetus in the biology of sensing to be awed by beauty and fascinated by complexity. As well as awareness that survival depends on interaction within sensed environment which can be degraded through harmful action, and in turn feeling of debt owed to the environment we are dependent on. Positive philosophies, materialism and religions, need to evolve to tackle judgment of discovery and modernizing if we are to better contest victim worship and malthusianism. This seems very primitive so far, hardly touched beyond superficial, simple and hazy flags. The good news is technology is giving us tools like intelligent software and social media that enable us to discover more and discuss it more broadly and we will push forward as we always have.
Some commenters claim that the Green Party was a Soviet influence operation.
In large part it was. The program was so successful that Yuri Andropov was selected to be Leonid Brezhnev's successor despite reservations about his KGB background. In turn, Gorbachev was to be the successor after him.
At least one German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was indeed a Soviet proxy. That's why after his political career he was appointed to the board of Gazprom.
How do you think Brand came up with that price for his amulet? Maybe if you buy two you get a free washing machine?
Whoa! You've cut an awful big swath with this one. I might agree with about half of what you've written here. The problem is, when you say "there is ample research proving all of these claims to be false", most of us have lost trust in said 'research', since so much of it is bought and paid for by special interests. like Big Pharma. So we're left to think for ourselves.
One very difficult statement to buy is when you said "organic farming is not better for the environment or human health". Really? Who says?
I signed up for your substack because of your brilliant writing on nuclear radiation not being nearly as harmful as we've always been taught. Based on that, I've recommended you. But now? I think you've gone off the deep end. What hace you been smoking?
Hi Al, you must have missed my post on organic food and farming. You'll find the answers to your questions here > https://zionlights.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-organic-farming
As for your last question, I don't smoke and never have done.
Sorry, I was a little rude.
Mostly wrong. Big pharma? Try surviving a major infection without antibiotics. Try surviving a medical surgical procedure without modern antiseptics and anisthetics.
As for organic farming, how many people in the world do you think would start starving to death if the Green Revolution had never occurred and modern fertilizers and protections against noxious weeds and pests did not exit? The destruction to humanity's food supply would be enormous.
So, who says? Everyone who knows anything about how food is produced. "Organic" is nothing more than an advertising label of zero nutritional value.
Well, like I said, I only question about half of what Zion Lights said; not all. That means I agree with the other half. She sure covered a lot.
Yes, of course we’ve benefited tremendously from advances in pharmaceuticals. What I was reacting to is recent revelations about the harm that the Cov-19 vaccines did, and how the Big Pharma pushed them before sufficient trials and how the truth was censored.
As for organic farming, all I was questioning is the statement that it’s not better for your health. As a retired person, I have time to ‘tend my own garden’, and don’t use pesticides or herbicides. I suspect the fresh organic produce is good for my health. Surely you’re not going to argue that I’d be better off and healthier by using the chemicals?
I realize organic isn’t not practical on large scale farms, and I also realize that food production in 3rd world countries is very important no matter how it’s done.
Growing some of your own food in your garden is not the same as the industry that is organic farming... Where food is sold as certified 'organic' but they do use chemicals, just different ones. https://zionlights.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-organic-farming
Yes, and I probably get as much out of the fresh air, sunshine, and exercise as from the food itself.
But you have responded to my main question - don’t you think you used too broad a brush on some those topics about what is ‘natural’? It was just too much for me to take in. Perhaps you could give some evidence…but one or two at a time, not the whole shebang at once.
I see value in organic farming as a way of maintaining agricultural techniques that may be needed in case manufactured pesticides do turn out to be harmful and/or there is a collapse of the industrial system that produces them. But I am not aware of any strong evidence that organic foods really are generally better for our health. And I would like to check the source of your claim about "recent revelations about the harm that the Cov-19 vaccines did, and how the Big Pharma pushed them before sufficient trials and how the truth was censored".
I don’t know of any proof organic is food is better either, but I think there is some proof that pesticides and herbicides can be harmful, so I prefer organic home-grown food as much as possible.
My daughter teaches microbiology to college students and she keeps me up to date on vaccine info. Here’s one source, but there are many more -
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/top-heart-doc-covid-vaccines-to-blame-for-sudden-deaths-of-young-athletes/
The vaccines were pushed through on a '“fast track” for approval by the FDA. The producers had a profit motive to ignore best practices as since they were allowed to.
Alex Berensen was an early critic and was ridiculed in 2020 and 2021; now not so much. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-pandemics-rightest-man/
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/it-finally-happened
You might want to check him out; although there are many others…
I’m certain that the fresh produce, along with the exercise you put in to grow it, is good for you. Don’t forget to rinse it, though.
Actually, I often don’t wash the veggies from my garden. My college microbiologist daughter told me it will build up my immunities! LOL
Plus the organic soil is a source of vitamin B12, if I remember right…
I guess it’s OK, because I’ve never gotten sick.
Remember that the dose makes the poison. Rinsing your vegetables doesn’t get everything off. It reduces it to something your body can deal with.